Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶171

Article III of the Constitution empowers federal courts to resolve “Cases” or “Controversies” and nothing more. The case-or-controversy requirement “limits our power as judges: It means that we can only resolve concrete legal dis- putes—those with real stakes for real people.” Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA, 606 U. S. 100, 133 (2025) (Jackson, J., dissenting). In this way, Article III “tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarifed atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separa tion of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.